Do you want pics of women in the frum magazines?

Rebbetzin1

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 1:08 pm

I believe that excluding pictures of women from magazines sends a wrong message to our sons and daughters. It makes it appear that there is something inherently sinful in the face or appearance of a woman, which is absolutely not the case. I am definitely very upset when I see an article of a woman with a picture of the male persons of her family. I believe that boycotting a magazine with female pictures in it is detrimental and puts it in one category with the shoprite magazines in our children's head.
We are discussing modest everyday pictures of women, not tabloid style. WOMEN EXIST, men see them and need to acknowledge that we exist. we do not cause anyone to sin by showing a appropriate pictures.

amother

Seafoam

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 1:22 pm

Quote:

You can let your husband watch movies rated abc .... And come back to me in two years if he is still interested in being with you.

My husband watches movies and he's still interested in 45 year old me. I even (gasp) watch the victoria secret runway show with him in the room....yep, he's still interested in me.

Newsflash: Men are NOT animals. They can live in this world and interact respectfully with beautiful women without lusting after them/suddenly throwing their marriage out the window. They have more of a brain then you seem to give them credit for. If they were only interested in women for the physical aspect, how do you explain all the happily married ugly women?

Debbie

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 1:24 pm

[quote="daisy"]For those who are talking about 4 year old girls in costumes with their faces blurred, this is not the case in the frum magazines.

The picture I saw of the girl aged about 4 years whose face was obscured was in one of the advertisers delivered to Frum homes in the area in which I live ; it is also the policy of the advertisers to not even put the woman's name unless the advert is aimed at women, personally I find that a bit extreme!

icebreaker

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 2:14 pm

So buy magazines that cater to you and your hashkafa. I don't want to put all publications in the same box but money is the the number 1 motivator. If not number 1, then at least at the top. Is it right? Eh, probably not. But if enough people are okay with seeing women in magazines vs those who don't want to, they're probably going to cater to the community who buys the most. You have the freedom of not buying that particular magazine.

amother wrote:

All models are okay with their picture splayed across magazines. does that make it okay? it's not only about the person. it's about the viewers too.

DrMom

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 2:19 pm

tigerwife wrote:

Out of curiousity, do any of the writers here prefer to have their photo published? I know I'd prefer not to (not even from a tznius POV, more for privacy. I never post my face on SM either.) what about men- do they ever get the choice to withdraw?

As a follow-up, I'd add that just because you or even many women) don't want to put your photo in the magazine, doesn't mean you should be forbidden to do so as a matter of policy. All authors should be given the option.

dancingqueen

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:04 pm

Rebbetzin1 wrote:

So much this. You're my kind of rebetzin Smile

I originally thought it was men who were pushing women out of the picture in the RW world, but this thread is convincing me as others have suggested before that it's really the women who are pushing for this and enforcing it. There seems to be a lot of fear and paranoia from many about their dhs and sons seeing pictures of other women. I wonder where that fear is being introduced from.

Just reading these comments "women's pictures splashed over the cover" and describing pictures of 10 year old girls as provocative...Never seeing pictures of women is what makes it seem so much more titillating.

farm

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:15 pm

amother wrote:

In my circles (yeshivish but definitely not extreme) its very accepted not to look at women for no reason. Looking at the cashier, waitress, or service women is not for no reason. They are doing a service for you and it's polite to acknowledge that by glancing at them. The people that don't even do that are definitely not reading those magazines and yes I do think thats a chumra not halacha. I wasn't talking about those people. I'm talking about the standard yeshivish or chassidish guy that will look at women that they are talking to, or acknowledge women that are helping them but will not look at women for no reason.
About Issur Yichud I was not saying its the same thing. I was just giving an example of a situation where just because we have issurim doesn't mean without them people would automatically sin, but chazal saw the need for it to be there as gedarim to make sre that people don't sin. Also yichud is not just being in the same room. It's being in the same house....

If that is the reason for the no womenpolicy, those same men should certainly not be reading these magazines- bittul torah!!
You can't have it both (and all) ways. Target audience is right wing "yeshivishe"? Men in those circles either won't give the picture a second glance or would never read anything other than a sefer anyway.
I wish the CEOs had the guts to include pictures for a week or two and test the market (or publish 2 versions for a few weeks)!

amother

Blush

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:28 pm

farm wrote:

Guess what? Right-wing yeshivish people aren't some strange species from mars. They are humans who also need some downtime too (and yes, many of them are reading the magazines.)

amother

Slategray

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:30 pm

I'm a regular writer for all the frum publications. if you read them, you know my name. (I'm being amother here, don't need everyone to know my imamother name...) I do write for another secular magazine that does print my picture and I get a real kick out of it (of course its a really nice pic of me, taken years ago when I was about 50lb skinnier, and people who don't me wouldn't recognize me anyhow!)
If it was policy that a writer, including females, could have their picture with their article, I would choose to have my picture printed (from a few years ago, with make-up, much skinnier, etc... Smile

I feel that seeing the person who wrote the article adds so much to an article, it gives it credibility, and as a reader you care more.
I also really don't like that the frum publications don't have pictures of women. I find the graphics sometimes have to scramble and end up not fitting the text. I've had articles about beautiful inspiring uplifting women surrounded by flowers... and I just thought euch. get rid of those stupid flowers that mean nothing and show me the people. its harder to connect, it takes away from the article, doesn't aid it in any way.
by the way, I'm not talking about ami or mishpacha. I am talking about Family first and Binah - magazines FOR THE LADIES! What are men doing reading it anyhow? And if they are reading it and they're so turned on by pics of tznius ladies, well I'm sorry but I think that this is probably the least of their problems.

amother

Blush

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:36 pm

amother wrote:

And if they are reading it and they're so turned on by pics of tznius ladies, well I'm sorry but I think that this is probably the least of their problems.

That's not the point.
The sensitivity is that it is not refined to have women's attractive pictures displayed, nothing to do with s-xuality.

farm

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:40 pm

amother wrote:

That's not the point.
The sensitivity is that it is not refined to have women's attractive pictures displayed, nothing to do with s-xuality.

And my point is that if your family is on the madreiga of that sensitibity, your husband would maybe read a biography of a gadol if he needs downtime.
Don't add made up halachos and gedarim and rationalize them or expect accommodation.

amother

Blush

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:51 pm

farm wrote:

I'm not even bothering answering your attack. Believe it or not, Yeshivish people also have feelings. But I'm done with this site.

amother

Gray

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 3:52 pm

amother wrote:

That's not the point.
The sensitivity is that it is not refined to have women's attractive pictures displayed, nothing to do with s-xuality.

When you think you are too sensitive to see half the people on the planet, that's not sensitivity. It's sickness.

If you can't look directly at the sun, you're normal. If you cannot bear to be out in sunlight, you're ill (or a vampire).

amother

Jade

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 4:29 pm

tigerwife wrote:

Yes, I was also wondering what kind of books she was referring to. Can't say I've read them all but I've definitely seen chassidish children's books with illustrations of girls and even mothers.

I'm not sure if I should mention authors here, but a recently published children's book came out and there are no females there!!!! It was highly advertised and I wanted to get it for my kids, it's an activity book and looking through it, there was no way I would buy it.
There are also some Hagaddas for Pesach that don't have women in them.

amother

Goldenrod

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 4:39 pm

amother wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with sky.
You can't draw the line just at rebbetzins who have short shaitels and little makeup. Yes, I don't walk around on the street like that either, but I do think it's wrong to display a picture of me fully made up and attractive to men all around the globe. (and yes there are many men reading the family first, you think only women like serial stories?)
You can't compare the type of graphics that we use today to the Jewish Observer with black and white fuzzy photos.
No-one is saying that the sight of a woman is indecent. What we are saying is that it is not refined to splash pictures of women in magazines.
Kol kavuda bas melech pnima has nothing to do with preventing men from going astray.

Im sorry but kol kavuda went out the window the day you have women working in manhattan 12 hours a day so hubby can be in yeshiva
I am livid that when it comes to magazines shiurim kiddush levona we say kol hakevuda
But when she goes out to work we don't say kol hakevuda
It seems kol hakevuda is just a stick to hit women with

tigerwife

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 4:40 pm

DrMom wrote:

Sure, I agree with that. I'm just wondering if this is turning into a matter of politics versus what the magazine and its community actually wants. Already one writer responded that she wouldn't mind her photo being published.

gold21

Thu, Mar 16 2017, 4:52 pm

happyone wrote:

Who cares? You don't like it, don't purchase those magazines . Walk into Shop rite and you got a large selection of magazines with women splashed all over the cover and inside pages .

Cheap shot.

And if I don't want trashy magazines in my home?

So keep the photos of women out of the main Mishpacha, which is geared towards men, but put them in the Mishpacha Family First, geared towards women. You think maybe your husbands can control themselves from reading Family First?